I have never met a single American who thinks America solo'd the entire Second World War. They all know about the contributions of the British and the Soviets. In fact, in high school, people *loved* talking about the Soviets and their involvement in the Second World War.
i grew up in a deep red state. they definitely downplayed the eastern front, maybe a brief mention of stalingrad. but buy and large, they made it seem like the US carried hard
Not my experience at all at public school in a red state, we definitely learned about other countries on the allied side in the war like China, USSR, even normally-neglected places like India and Australia.
Grew up in the south and they did. In fact the Soviet involvement as well as their losses were emphasized quite heavily. But I guess people remember what they want.
Yea people sleep through their history classes and then hear the other kids talking about the parts they liked later, and just assume thats all that was taught i guess.
Of course about 80% of the people who day “i grew up in a deep ____ state” mean they grew up in the opposite and want to pretend to be knowledgeable on things they dont like.
Definitely did not grow up in a blue state, and I was also in rural farmland. I enjoyed school and we honestly covered very, very little of WWII. I only had one year of US history that focused mostly on the Revolution and Civil War and then World Civ was only a half year and focused on ancient empires.
I remember plenty, some people had vastly different education experiences based on more than simply also being in a Red State which is why I was offering a counter view to another comment.
I mean, there's some truth to that in general, just based on human nature, but there's genuinely a lot of local variance in what is taught. So. Probably less selective memory involved than you're insinuating.
Disagree… I remember quite vividly learning how horrible the Eastern front was. How USSR troops had to manage with substandard equipment and lack of supplies. Sharing rifles. Freezing, starving…
I don’t think any of us can imagine what the average Russian soldier had to go through.
Also in a deep red state. I don’t remember even covering the eastern front at all. They taught that the Americans came in and saved everyone, including the British. I was an adult when I finally discovered that not only did the Americans not capture Berlin, it was a massive joint effort on the western front.
Now I consume as much media about the war as I can so I can learn everything I was not taught. The eastern front truly was hell for everyone.
This idea originates from Hollywood, because America makes the movies that the world watches and so most WWII movies are told from an American perspective.
If the USSR had a thriving film industry we'd seen more about the war from their perspective.
Many countries have a thriving film industry (UK, France, Japan, China, India etc.). The US exports the most, but that doesn't mean American movies overwhelm local markets. I've seen many more WWII movies from my country (France) than from the US. Each country's movies will focus on a perspective that favors them. In France we tend to focus on the French resistance. As a result there is a very romantic and idealized vision of the resistance in France, exactly the same as how US movies idealized the American role in the war. I'm not saying one is comparable to the other in scale, but both are overblown by their local movie industries.
My favorite WW2 movie is an American movie, with a French director but it is told from the Soviet perspective; "Enemy at the Gates". It has a Soviet hero as the main character but I wouldn't say it portrays the USSR as being the good guys either. Great film.
Come and See is also a good WW2 movie made by the Soviets, although it is quite dark.
France I believe takes some steps to protect its music and film industries to ensure that it thrives, and I think that is a good thing.
The easiest way to score fake internet points is finding a way to make comments on every post about Americans making everything about America. The irony somehow goes unnoticed.
I mean there is definitely the hardcore group of idiots who'll tell any European that we "saved their ass back in dubleya dubleya too". Edit: yes, I am aware that US involvement, fiscally, industrially, and militarily, was instrumental to the allied efforts in world war 2. That wasn't the point I'm making. I'm referring to the sort of person who acts like they personally had a hand in it
We did, though. Without the land-lease agreement the Soviets almost certainly would have collapsed or at best fell into a stalemate with Germany. They certainly wouldn’t have been able to make any sort of serious counteroffensive. And the UK wouldn’t have been able to take back Western Europe.
That doesn’t underscore what the Soviets paid for with blood, but the Americans were pivotal.
Stalin and Khrushchev both stated quite directly that without the U.S. they would have lost. Realistically, it took both of them to defeat the Germans. The U.S. could have done it alone over time as they’d grind them down like they eventually did Japan due to massive logistical and resource advantages, but it’s unlikely the U.S. public would have supported that. They barely did for beating Japan, who directly attacked them.
Yeah, and while Britain had fewer "big moment" battles than either of the superpowers, one should not discount their contribution to the overall result.
For people interested: there's a very recent book called "1942: Crux of War", which in very accessible language shows how the war was to a large degree put on track for its conclusion over the course of this specific year - across virtually all of the various theaters around the globe.
Britain did not have fewer big moment then either super powers, in fact I'd argue we had more. Unlike both the soviets and yanks the brits were in ww2 from the start. From 1939-41 britain faught in the evacuation of Dunkirk, the battle of the atlantic and battle of britain, taranto and the battle of al almein (twice) all alone and before america even joined the war. Even after with thing like operation chariot, the verious battles in india and bruma that stopped the Japanese invasion.
Absolutely right, though I didn't mean "number of battles", i meant "number of battles with super recognizable names in which the army in question really mopped the floor with axis dead". Here, I think, primarily the Air Battle of Britain ("the Blitz") and El Alamnein come to mind.
Dunkirk is, as Churchill pointed out, not "a victory" but "a deliverance", while in the Pacific theater in the beginning the understrength colonial garrisons did fold relatively quickly. The Battle of the Atlantic, Air War Europe, and say, Normandy, were team efforts.
Thus what I mean is that the British contribution was rather unflashy, but that doesn't mean it was not real.
Yeah you are right, i was thinking more on the lines of important battles/events of the war as opposed to the more memorable 'big' one's.
Dunkirk and burma were both massive failures for britain but they were important events that shaped the way the war went that's why I included them. I think it's fair to say britain was involved in more key events but you are right in terms of big battles where the allies were victorious like stalingrad or the battle of medway what your saying is completely right and I'm in the wrong.
The truth, i think, is that Britain just didn't have the resources to be flashy. Their contribution, nonetheless, was pretty strong in a "latent threat" way - the naval blockade since '39 was important to keep the German economy struggling, and the very threat of a naval invasion kept a number of divisions on the shores of western Europe instead marching on Moscow.
Plus, while Britain had few flashy battles, there are quite a few very significant specific contributions, especially cracking the enigma (with significant contribution from Poland) and effectively being the best cryptanalysts of the war (less good ad encryption, however), as well as effectively alone dismantling the German surface fleet (which was with the exception of a few actions fairly useless anyway, due to, drumroll, Britain)
Well stated… I’ve wondered if Germany and Japan could have “won” if they had managed to keep the US and the USSR out of the war. Germany could have kept a huge chunk of Europe and the Middle East. Japan could have done the same with Asia.
However, as we’ve seen… defeating isn’t the same as keeping. Even if they had “won”, they would have collapsed eventually from the locals fighting back from the inside.
People seem to conflate "couldnt conquer the USSR" with losing. The status quo, even with lots of financial support from the US, was a largely conquered Europe. Now remove all US support and no direct intervention. It's basically on Britain to negotiate peace at best.
That’s what I said. The Americans were the only power that had the potential to beat the Germans, but I doubt the public would have supported the effort it would have required.
The only chance the Americans would have had to beat the Germans alone is if they weren’t fighting the Japanese on the other side of the world and they still had the Brits assisting with intelligence and using their land as a base of operations.
Even then, you’d have to consider things like Italy and the groups of Eastern Europeans that joined the Nazis to fight against the Soviets.
If you’re just considering the German forces from Germany. Then the U.S. may have been able to. If you set up the hypothetical skirmish before the fall of France and give the U.S. their 1944 strength, then they’d definitely be able to.
The Americans could have easily defended an invasion from Germany without any help. However, the same goes the other way around. That’s mostly because of the massive ocean between them.
Because of “america bad” sentiment today people dont like the facts. Nobody with a brain is claiming that the US solod the whole war. It is however, an undeniable fact that they played a massive role in it.
We did do that though. And it's dubya, weirdo. Lol jk. But seriously everyone played their role, right? The thing is, high casualties doesn't mean doing more because they had low supply. Soviets blocked, arrested and sometimes shot their own for unauthorized retreat or falling back.
One could say that the US's biggest contribution was the ability to move people and equipment. Yes, we had no skin in the game until Japan touched our boats, but if Europe was doing so good on their own, why was Germany taking entire countries?
Why are the French so fucking obsessed with Americans and American issues? Probably focus on the literal invasion you have going on in Paris, not loans from 200 years ago, for fucks sake.
The US came into the war late compared to most of the other major powers. You can argue that the US was supplying weapons and whatever else, but the soldiers came in fresher and ready to go.
Make no mistake, the US did in fact provide a massive effort save the war, because without their logistics, manpower, and resources, the war could have dragged on even longer.
Of course you can, ironically enough, thank Hitler himself for winning the war for the allied powers. Had he not betrayed the russians and thought he was smarter than his generals, theres a very real chance WW2 went differently.
TLDR, no, the US didnt sweep in, slip its dick in the door and solo the war, but without its involvement, as well as other things, the war would have certainly lasted much longer, and the winner may have been different.
Wait... in what since didn't the US save Europe? If the US stopped financing there is little doubt Germany would have occupied most of continental Europe even without conquering the USSR. Even with US financing the allies that's how it was trending. Britain would have either had to negotiate peace with Germany or continue fighting a mostly conquered Europe (somehow).
The word choosing is what gets me. Soviets contributed and Brits contributed. But Russians sacrificed and fought 80% battles, and it's just a "contribution". It was the only and sole reason of the Nazi defeat.
You have to understand that US lost more people in Civil war centuries ago, than in WW2. That is called a contribution. Something minor, not a deciding factor.
"Contribution" makes zero claim to the extent of the contribution. It just means what it means: a Contribution. The USSR contributed to the war effort. The US contributed to the war effort. Britain contributed to the war efforts. China contributed to the war effort. There is no "just a contributiom" about it.
The USSR was not the "sole reason" either. The USSR doesn't win without the US and UK. Just as they don't without the USSR. There is a reason the liberal west and communist east formed an alliance. They needed each other.
I've certainly seen a lot of them online, to what extent they are trolling or just a loud minority I couldn't say, but the idea doesn't come from nowhere. However, you are right that people shouldn't just assume they are representative of the country as a whole.
I don't know that most Americans know the scope or scale of the Soviet contributions. They know they were an ally, but not that they were such a massive part of the Allied forces and strategy.
I don't know if I was too dumb to understand back then but in England we hardly had mention of the Soviets for the ww2 stuff it was almost entirely England as the allies with a bit about the French and America just showing up at the end.
Maybe some other people who grew up in England can confirm if they remember it like this, was about 10 years ago for me.
This was apparently a common opinion among Western Europeans when a lot of people were alive that remembered the war, though. The Americans were the largest single Army liberating western Europe and people remember American vehicles rolling through the French countryside. Free French troops in American M1 helmets and driving Jeeps. Brits driving Shermans.
Since those people have passed and these opinions are now formed from school curriculum, it's changed and now most see the USSR as the largest contributor.
The second panel is honestly as inaccurate, though. The French fought like hell but didn't have the benefit of the Channel like the Brits did. Making Japan tiny is also kind of silly in that their warmongering was responsible for millions of deaths and the fighting in the Pacific was absolutely brutal. Even more brutal was the fighting in China.
Not necessarily. As I'm sure you have no doubt noticed a small amount of Americans can make a lot of fucking noise so that it seems like it's actually a large amount of Americans.
I've had a couple of very very vocal conversations with Americans who act like everybody would be speaking German without them. And exactly 0 people from the entire rest of the world combined who share that opinion.
We are all aware that's it's not all Americans trust day this shit. It just feels like it with how vocal they are
Believing you did the most in WW2 =/= believing you solo'd WW2. And notice every single countries' plurality except the UK believes it was the US that did the most.
Maybe the perception of what you see online isn't accurate? Also the vast majority of internation Americans tourists are rich entitled yokels. The average family can't afford thousands of dollars in plane tickets to travel the world.
No one believes that America soloed WW2. That's just a strawman. But a lot of people believe that the US played a more important part than the other Allied countries like Russia and China.
Not every American thinks that the US one won it singlehandedly but going by what I see EVERY day online, there is a sizeable proportion of your population that thinks the rest of the world messed it up and you had to come in and save everyone's asses. This goes for WW1 too.
This is a lot of he said, she said that is unverifiable that makes it ultimately pointless. Are you representing the comments you read charitably and accurately? Am I? Who knows.
With that said, taking those comments at face value, considering that at America's entry in the war, Operation Barbarossa wasn't yet clearly a failure*, France was mostly knocked out and under German occupation, and Britain was battered and bruised with its supply lines threatened by u-boats and no chance of taking on Germany alone on the continent, it is understandable that some may believe things had been buggered up and America came in and helped straighten it out.
There is a reason Churchill was incredibly relieved when America entered the war.
*Barbarossa's evident failure would become clear the same month America entered the war.
Yes, Britain was in no way able to launch an invasion of the continent without US help.
What Britain did do was refuse, despite some domestic pressure, to make a deal with Germany. Britain retained its air superiority and started bombing German cities. His command told him he couldn't launch an invasion of Britain without air superiority. There were serious concerns in the German command about leaving Britain as an open front.
In Hitler's mind Britain was not a natural (race war) enemy of Germany and the decision to go into the USSR went ahead. And Britain became the launch pad of D-Day (paid for by the US).
Britain had no way of defeating Germany via a land invasion of the European continent, and the future would have been bleak. Either Britain would have been invaded once the USSR had been dealt with or it would have been an outpost next to a superpower, taking orders, but by continuing to fight, it allowed something better to happen.
So Britain didn't win WW2, but had it taken the easy, almost logical option, it would have been harder for the US to defeat Germany over the long term. Think of a consolidated Nazi Empire in control of all of Europe that's cracked its nuclear weapons program and is eyeing up the US next.
I am upticking you. Your comment is fair and I get your point, somewhat.
TLDR: Try launching a land invasion of France from long Island. No sarcasm here but often overlooked.
Which can be completely true while also believing America was part of an alliance and didn't solo the entire war. Those are not mutually exclusive beliefs.
Then with all due respect, you’ve never been to the American South. I’ll step outside right now and find you a dozen people who didn’t even know Soviets were on our side.
But I have. And intermingled with people from the South.
Further, you are moving the goalposts. The point is about whether Americans, generally, believe that America solo'd WW2. Even if you are right about some believing that the Soviets were not on our side, that doesn't entail they believe America solo'd WW2.
Moving the goalposts? It’s a meme and a joke. This isn’t a some scholarly debate. Don’t take it so seriously. If you want to solve the argument, find some polling or research on it and call it a day. But instead you act like a pedant.
Edit: Also, you said you never met a SINGLE AMERICAN who believed it, then shifted to saying it’s about Americans “generally.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Me talking about American generally is not ,oving the goalposts. I maintain I have never met a single American who believed the US solo'd WW2. I am sure there may be some Americans out there that believe it hence "generally". I haven't talked to every single American. However, the issue is whether those who do hold such erroneous beliefs are at all representative of A,ericams generally. My contention is that they hardly even exist, let alone represent that standard American view on the matter.
I have to admit it seems like a weird hill to die on. Like, you’re incredulous that there could be a lot of people in this country ignorant enough of history to think something like that. I’m not saying one way or the other. I just know at least 1/3 of my fellow citizens are ignorant enough to support this President, so I wouldn’t put it past people.
Which can be completely true without believing that America solo'd WW2.
I am not saying it. But the claim that America saved Europe is separate from the claim that America solo'd WW2.
In other words, believing America saved Europe and believing America had allies who made valuable contributions to the war effort are not mutually exclusive beliefs.
Yes maybe they are a bit smarter than the image they project, but you can understand they make the job awfully easy for people that "just make things up about Americans."
No, I don't understand. Sure, I've met misinformed Americans but I've also talked with Europeans who are dumb as rocks. I have never seen anything which would indicate to me that, as a whole, Americans are these stupid knuckle draggers and Europeans are all these sophisticated gentry.
I imagine it is a holdover of pre-WW1 colonial European attitudes that couldn't fathom America was anything more than a backwater country.
I'm not saying they are dumber than europeans in general, just that most I met online and offline end up saying they saved us. They never mentioned just being part of the forces that ended up winning.
People are going to make things up anyway for the sake of their own superiority. The Europeans were much bigger victims in WW2 than victors, and US had to fight both the Nazi and Japan, and post-ww2 even attempted to liberate the Chinese from japan by dropping supplies. The Europeans trying to discredit Americans efforts despite being too ignorant of the eastern WW2 which took the most world casualties.
I’m Russian whose parents emigrated when I was 6. Back when I was a kid, one of our family’s friends kid got suspended for protesting the lesson that America won WW2. Stood up and said no, Russia did. Then got suspended. USA for sure has had a long time of thinking that. Still do, with the constant land lease when people are talking about souls. Maybe it’s different in schools now but that was the same perception I had when I went to school then.
I grew up in a rural red state. Kids all played World at War and thought the Soviet campaign was awesome and couldn't stop talking about all the things the Soviets did in WW2.
Just literally watch the orange wannabe dictator go on about how America was the reason the Allies won both World Wars. I’m glad that there are plenty of people who know, but there are plenty of voting people who don’t. And being the leader of the country means that his words will have impact, despite the best educators might try to turn the tide of ignorance.
You must not know your grandparents or something. Literally every American boomer I’ve ever interacted with thinks that the USA single handedly saved the world from Hitler. The reality as I have interpreted it, is more like the USA got involved just as Germany was beginning to feel the drag of their over reach and supply chain issues. The US’ direct involvement changed the timeline for sure, but the resistance of European/Soviet forces was slowly killing the Nazi war machine at that point anyway. From my understanding they simply could not have gotten food and fuel where they would have needed it to continue their massive fronts. In addition to their industry being forced to focus on resource draining mega projects rather than supplying the very same fronts.
Hahah well if you're from any of the smaller countries that were an ally you are guaranteed to be told at least once in your life about how the Americans saved you by an American who had no part in the war.
Have you lived in deep red states that believe in US Supremacy, like Oklahoma for example? Most people I've met from inland/flyover America believe we were the true saviors of WWII.
You don't listen to Trump or Vance much do you? I'm pretty sure it was Trump's people who told a bunch of European leaders they would all be speaking German if it wasn't for the US
here is a few, because your education system faces inwards and your history knowledge is all propoganda. They make it up because its fucking true mate, thanks for your help at 10 to midnight
Yes, because street interview videos are famously unbiased and don't edit things to give a certain impression. Especially a street interview done by a literal Russian state owned channel.
Also the question was what country played the greatest role in defeating the Nazis in WW2. America is a legitimate answer. One can certainly argue USSR, but they can America as well. War is more than bodies. What the USSR gave in bodies, America matched in supplies.
There is a reason the liberal west and communist east joined forces even though they were opposed to one another. They needed each other.
212
u/CalvinSays 9d ago
I have never met a single American who thinks America solo'd the entire Second World War. They all know about the contributions of the British and the Soviets. In fact, in high school, people *loved* talking about the Soviets and their involvement in the Second World War.
People just make things up about Americans.